Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*
G.R. No. 131282. January 4, 2002.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
of passion or hostility. But here we find that in its decision holding that the
municipal court has jurisdiction over the case and that private
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
12
respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC,
respondent Court of Appeals discussed the facts on which its decision is
grounded as well as the law and jurisprudence on the matter. Its action was
neither whimsical nor capricious.
Actions; Jurisdiction; Estoppel; While participation in all stages of a
case before the trial court, including invocation of its authority in asking for
affirmative relief, effectively bars a party by estoppel from challenging the
court’s jurisdiction, the Court notes that estoppel has become an equitable
defense that is both substantive and remedial and its successful invocation
can bar a right and not merely its equitable enforcement; For estoppel to
apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and intentional
because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice.—Was
private respondent estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC?
In this case, we are in agreement with the Court of Appeals that he was not.
While participation in all stages of a case before the trial court, including
invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively bars a
party by estoppel from challenging the court’s jurisdiction, we note that
estoppel has become an equitable defense that is both substantive and
remedial and its successful invocation can bar a right and not merely its
equitable enforcement. Hence, estoppel ought to be applied with caution.
For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and
intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice.
Same; Same; Same; The fundamental rule is that, the lack of
jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the parties, or
even cured by their silence, acquiescence or even by their express consent;
Even if a party actively participated in the proceedings before the trial
court, the doctrine of estoppel cannot still be properly invoked against him
because the question of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at anytime and at
any stage of the action.—Under these circumstances, we could not fault the
Court of Appeals in overruling the RTC and in holding that private
respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
regional trial court. The fundamental rule is that, the lack of jurisdiction of
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
the court over an action cannot be waived by the parties, or even cured by
their silence, acquiescence or even by their express consent. Further, a party
may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the
proceedings and even on appeal. The appellate court did not err in saying
that the RTC should have declared itself barren of jurisdiction over the
action. Even if private respondent actively participated in the proceedings
before said court, the doctrine of estoppel cannot still be properly invoked
against him because the question of lack of jurisdiction may be
13
raised at anytime and at any stage of the action. Precedents tell us that as a
general rule, the jurisdiction of a court is not a question of acquiescence as a
matter of fact, but an issue of conferment as a matter of law. Also, neither
waiver nor estoppel shall apply to confer jurisdiction upon a court, barring
highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances.
Same; Same; Appeals; Certiorari; Since a decision of a court without
jurisdiction is null and void, it could logically never become final and
executory, hence appeal therefrom by writ of error would be out of the
question—a petition for certiorari would be in order.—Since a decision of a
court without jurisdiction is null and void, it could logically never become
final and executory, hence appeal therefrom by writ of error would be out of
the question. Resort by private respondent to a petition for certiorari before
the Court of Appeals was in order.
QUISUMBING, J.:
1
This petition for certiorari assails the Decision dated September 17,
1997, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 2340-UDK,
entitled Bernardo Eradel vs. Hon. Ermelino G. Andal, setting aside
all proceedings in Civil Case No. 1075, Gabriel L. Duero vs.
Bernardo Eradel, before the Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court
of Tandag, Surigao del Sur.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
Sometime in 2 1988, according to petitioner, private respondent
Bernardo Eradel entered and occupied petitioner’s land covered by
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
_______________
14
respondent that the land was his and requested the latter to vacate
the land, private respondent refused, but instead threatened him with
bodily harm. Despite repeated demands, private respondent
remained steadfast in his refusal to leave the land.
On June 16, 1995, petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for
Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages and
Attorney’s Fees against private respondent and two others, namely,
Apolinario and Inocencio Ruena. Petitioner appended to the
complaint the aforementioned tax declaration. The counsel of the
Ruenas asked for extension to file their Answer and was given until
July 18, 1995. Meanwhile, petitioner and the Ruenas executed a
compromise agreement, which became the trial court’s basis for a
partial judgment rendered on January 12, 1996. In this agreement,
the Ruenas through their counsel, Atty. Eusebio Avila, entered into a
Compromise Agreement with herein petitioner, Gabriel Duero. Inter
alia, the agreement stated that the Ruenas recognized and bound
3
themselves to respect the ownership and possession of Duero.
Herein private respondent Eradel was not a party to the agreement,
and he was declared in default for failure to file his answer to the
4
complaint.
Petitioner presented his evidence ex parte on February 13, 1996.
On May 8, 1996, judgment was rendered in his favor, and private
respondent was ordered to peacefully vacate and turn over Lot No.
1065 Cad. 537-D to petitioner; pay petitioner P2,000 annual rental
from 1988 up the time he vacates the land, and P5,000 as attorney’s
5
fees and the cost of the suit. Private respondent received a copy of
the decision on May 25, 1996.
On June 10, 1996, private respondent filed a Motion for New
Trial, alleging that he has been occupying the land as a tenant of
Artemio Laurente, Sr., since 1958. He explained that he turned over
the complaint and summons to Laurente in the honest belief that as
landlord, the latter had a better right to the land and was responsible
to defend any adverse claim on it. However, the trial court denied
the motion for new trial.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
_______________
3 Records, p. 24.
4 Id. at 29.
5 Rollo, pp. 15-16.
15
16
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
Petitioner now comes before this Court, alleging that the Court of
Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction when it held that:
II
III
_______________
6 Id., at 26.
7 Id., at 6.
17
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
8
ments. Thus, on page 5 of his petition, we find that to bolster the
claim that the appellate court erred in holding that the RTC had no
9
jurisdiction, petitioner pointed to Annex E of his petition which
supposedly is the Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of
San Miguel, Surigao, specifically containing the notation, “Note:
Subject for General Revision Effective 1994.” But it appears that
Annex E of his petition is not a Certification but a xerox copy of a
Declaration of Real Property. Nowhere does the document contain a
notation, “Note: Subject for General Revision Effective 1994.”
10
Petitioner also asked this Court to refer to Annex F, where he said
the zonal value of the disputed land was P1.40 per sq.m., thus
placing the computed value of the land at the time the complaint was
filed before the RTC at P57,113.98, hence beyond the jurisdiction of
the municipal court and within the jurisdiction of the regional trial
court. However, we find that these annexes are both merely xerox
copies. They are obviously without evidentiary weight or value.
Coming now to the principal issue, petitioner contends that
respondent appellate court acted with grave abuse of discretion. By
“grave abuse of discretion” is meant such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or a lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
11
manner by reason of passion or hostility. But here we find that in
its decision holding that the municipal court has jurisdiction over the
case and that private respondent was not estopped from questioning
the jurisdiction of the RTC, respondent Court of Appeals discussed
the facts on which its decision is grounded as well as the law and
12
jurisprudence on the matter. Its action was neither whimsical nor
capricious.
_______________
8 Id., at 7.
9 Id., at 40.
10 Id., at 41.
11 Cuison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128540, 289 SCRA 159, 177 (1998).
12 Rollo, pp. 23-25.
18
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
_______________
13 PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
107518, 297 SCRA 402, 428 (1998).
14 Philippine Bank of Communication vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109803, 289
SCRA 178, 185 (1998).
15 La Naval Drugs Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 103200, 236
SCRA 78, 87-88 (1994).
16 Records, pp. 1-5.
17 SEC. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.—Except in cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
shall exercise:
xxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the
property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or,
in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs; Provided, That in cases of land not
declared for taxa-
19
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
that jurisdiction already belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC
pursuant to said amendment. Private respondent, an unschooled
farmer, in the mistaken belief that since he was merely a tenant of
the late Artemio Laurente, Sr., his landlord, gave the summons to a
Hipolito Laurente, one of the surviving heirs of Artemio, Sr., who
did not do anything about the summons. For failure to answer the
complaint, private respondent was declared in default. He then filed
a Motion for New Trial in the same court and explained that he
defaulted because of his belief that the suit ought to be answered by
his landlord. In that motion he stated that he had by then the
evidence to prove that he had a better right than petitioner over the
land because of his long, continuous and uninterrupted possession as
18
bona-fide tenant-lessee of the land. But his motion was denied. He
tried an alternative recourse. He filed before the RTC a Motion for
Relief from Judgment. Again, the same court denied his motion,
hence he moved for reconsideration of the denial. In his Motion for
Reconsideration, he raised for the first time the RTC’s lack of
jurisdiction. This motion was again denied. Note that private
respondent raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, not when the case
was already on appeal, but when the case was still before the RTC
that ruled him in default, denied his motion for new trial as well as
for relief from judgment, and denied likewise his two motions for
reconsideration. After the RTC still refused to reconsider the denial
of private respondent’s motion for relief from judgment, it went on
to issue the order for entry of judgment and a writ of execution.
Under these circumstances, we could not fault the Court of
Appeals in overruling the RTC and in holding that private
respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
regional trial court. The fundamental rule is that, the lack of
jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the
parties, or even cured by their silence, acquiescence or even by their
19
express consent. Further, a party may assail the jurisdiction of the
court over
_______________
tion purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value
of the adjacent lots.
18 Id., at 65-66.
19 Republic vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-31303-04, 83 SCRA 453, 475
(1978).
20
20
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
20
the action at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal. The
appellate court did not err in saying that the RTC should have
declared itself barren of jurisdiction over the action. Even if private
respondent actively participated in the proceedings before said court,
the doctrine of estoppel cannot still be properly invoked against him
because the question of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at anytime
21
and at any stage of the action. Precedents tell us that as a general
rule, the jurisdiction of a court is not a question of acquiescence
22
as a
matter of fact, but an issue of conferment as a matter of law. Also,
neither waiver nor estoppel shall apply to confer jurisdiction upon a
23
court, barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances.
The Court of Appeals found support for its ruling in our decision in
Javier vs. Court of Appeals, thus:
x x x The point simply is that when a party commits error in filing his suit or
proceeding in a court that lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same,
such act may not at once be deemed sufficient basis of estoppel. It could
have been the result of an honest mistake, or of divergent interpretations of
doubtful legal provisions. If any fault is to be imputed to a party taking such
course of action, part of the blame should be placed on the court which
shall entertain the suit, thereby lulling the parties into believing that they
pursued their remedies in the correct forum. Under the rules, it is the duty of
the court to dismiss an action ‘whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter.’ (Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court) Should
the Court render a judgment without jurisdiction, such judgment may be
impeached or annulled for lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 30, Rule 132, Ibid.),
24
within ten (10) years from the finality of the same. [Emphasis ours.]
_______________
20 De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 96107, 245 SCRA 166, 172
(1995).
21 Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time
the right of action accrues:
22 Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, 295 SCRA 470, 488 (1998).
23 Asset Privatization Trust vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121171, 300 SCRA
579, 599 (1998).
24 G.R. No. 96617, 214 SCRA 572, 577 (1992); Rollo, pp. 25-26.
21
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 373
_______________
25 Rollo, p. 20.
22
in law not to file an answer, aside from the fact that he believed the
suit was properly his landlord’s concern.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed
decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 1075 entitled Gabriel L.
Duero vs. Bernardo Eradel, its Order that private respondent turn
over the disputed land to petitioner, and the Writ of Execution it
issued, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
23
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec53c02e780ee41a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12